I can only speak for Theravada suttas, but the Lord Buddha always makes it very clear whenever he is using an analogy to be interpreted as an analogy. Otherwise suttas are intended to be taken literally.

Ervin wrote:Peace. I have read in the past sutra ot Avalokitesvara bodhisatva mahasatva. I got it from the temple in Melbourne city.

And it preaty much talks about miracles that would happen if you had faith and called upon this bodhisatva. Now are those miracles to be taken literally or metaforicaly?

Thanks

Well, there are various theories across schools about how this works and the nature of deities, but yes. They are meant to be taken literally.

However, by calling upon a Bodhisattva it doesn't mean to only say his name. As Thrangu Rinpoche put it in his teachings on the Medicine Buddha, one has to also reflect and be awed by his qualities and on that basis gain faith.

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Ervin wrote:Peace. I have read in the past sutra ot Avalokitesvara bodhisatva mahasatva. I got it from the temple in Melbourne city.

And it preaty much talks about miracles that would happen if you had faith and called upon this bodhisatva. Now are those miracles to be taken literally or metaforicaly?

Thanks

Since very early times, commentators described texts as being "nitartha" or "neyartha". The former are "fully drawn out", and require no further exegesis. The latter are "to be drawn out", and require further exegesis or explanation. This shows that they realized that some teachings are pretty much literal, and others are not. The only question then, is which sutras are which - and that's where most disagree.

gregkavarnos wrote:So, like, in the good ol' days there was a fiction and non-fiction section in the Dharma library for readers to choose from then?

Well, there was a my sutra/not my sutra section.

You see this all the time in Indian scholastic debates where one person says in such and such as sutra it says x and the reponse is "we don't read that sutra so your point is irrelevant"

Sutras and tantras are secondary to personal experience. This is why a Buddhism fundamentalism is impossible. We can certainly use sutras to illustrate our points, but there is no settled 'canon". Gzhan stong pas have their scriptures, Gelugs have theirs, Zen has another canon; Theravada theirs, etc.

Ervin wrote:how many of you believe that the mention with sinciere faith in Avalokitesvara would see you saved literally in all those situations mentioned in the surta?

Yes, I do, but it won't override karma unless you're a Buddha.

This last episode of Moggallana's life, however, showed that the law of moral causality (Kamma) has even greater power than the supernormal feats of this master of magic. Only a Buddha can control the karmic consequences acting upon his body to such an extent that nothing might cause his premature death.

Ervin wrote:And the last question is how many of you believe that the mention with sinciere faith in Avalokitesvara would see you saved literally in all those situations mentioned in the surta?

Thanks

Which miracles are these? It sounds like a sutra popular in Chinese Buddhism - so is one of the stories about a person about to be executed and he recites Kwan Yin's name all night and isn't executed in the morning. Well, that definitely happened. And it also definitely happened that some people did the same and were executed.

Of those four, it is only the last that confirms the first three as authoritative. This is why the buddha instructs us that he cannot remove our suffering, or hand us liberation, but only show us the path.

And for that reason, I instruct my students to rely on their experience rather than some words in a book. Why, because I am a practitioner who has confirmed the truth of the essence of the dharma in my own experience, and that was not based on some words in a book.

Of those four, it is only the last that confirms the first three as authoritative. This is why the buddha instructs us that he cannot remove our suffering, or hand us liberation, but only show us the path.

And for that reason, I instruct my students to rely on their experience rather than some words in a book. Why, because I am a practitioner who has confirmed the truth of the essence of the dharma in my own experience, and that was not based on some words in a book.

N

But if one does not accept as authoritative (as do many) the benchmarks of text, oral teachings & guru, then personal experience is not just primary, but the exclusive source of "truth". And if the Dharma is not understood fully & correctly, from whatever source, then "experience" can confirm nonsense that leads to more sorrow and/or reject devas, rebirth and other so-called cultural trappings.

I am not advocating "reliance" only on scripture, but just in the four-fold sense, where the first step is literal acceptance, with deeper views coming later.

Will wrote:I am not advocating "reliance" only on scripture, but just in the four-fold sense, where the first step is literal acceptance, with deeper views coming later.

No, this leads to far too many contradictions because there are far too many contradictory sutras. For this reasons, in terms of sutra hermeneutics we are given the famous formula:

Follow the dharma, not the person;the meaning, not the words;the definitive meaning, not the provisional meaning;wisdom, not conceptuality.

Again, the ultimate authority is personal experience.

In terms of what I offered you, since it is hard to understand the sutras and tantras, you need to rely on oral instruction. In order to rely on oral instruction, you need a teacher. But in order to confirm the teacher's instruction is correct, you need your experience of the path. So again, in the end, experience is the final authority in dharma.

Focusing on step one; it says put your personal experience of the literal Dharma first - not the person who explains it for you. But in order to do that, one must have enough confidence or faith in the plain sutra text as authoritative as is. The fact that we (most of us) deal with translations and much innate ignorance is no excuse for fobbing off responsibility for our initial understanding to another.

Step One: Follow the [scriptural buddha] dharma, not the person [who dazzles with his spin].

Ervin wrote:Peace. And how do you diferentiate between fiction and non fiction? And why is there fiction at all? Why confuse people?

And the last question is how many of you believe that the mention with sinciere faith in Avalokitesvara would see you saved literally in all those situations mentioned in the surta?

Thanks

True, you will be saved because you decided to believe in Avalokitesvara-this means that you will change for the good. But if you say you believe in Avalokitesvara, but you continue to do evil, no Bodhisattva can save you.

As for teachings and practice, they are one. Personal experience has to reflect the teachings.

Peace.

NAMO AMITABHANAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)Linjii―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―

On the other hand, there are those of us who do not think believing in any deity will save anything. If there is anything to be saved in the first place. As a matter of fact I find it odd that any Buddhist thinks in terms of salvation, which strikes me as a very Christian idea. But, there are many paths, for all I know the salvationists are right.

My experience of Buddhism has been that is more like building a city than finding a great treasure somewhere that will solve all problems. Slowly I have accumulated something of a meditation practice, some mental techniques for fighting off self destructive thinking, and a habit of mindfulness that actually functions once in a while. These things in turn have led to a recognition that bodhicitta is a worthwhile aspiration, the adoption of that aspiration, and even occasional implementation of that aspiration. It's all very ragged and spotty at the moment, but it is slowly shaping up as many elements of practice mutually reinforce each other. It has taken years just to get this far, and if by the end of my days I can function as a bodhisattva even a few percent of the time each day, this life will have been well spent.

On this path, the sutras serve as a field of ideas and purposes. I will take literally anything I can apply or understand, I will take metaphorically anything that seems beneficial as a metaphor, but always the goal is to find things I can practice effectively. So I don't think literalness or metaphor-ness resides in the actual scriptures, they are alternate paths and the choice of which path to take depends greatly on the strengths and weaknesses of one's current practice.